MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Wednesday, May 26, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Bill Atherton

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, AND MAY 20, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Chair McLain delayed action on the minutes to the June 8, 1999, Growth Management Committee meeting.

2.  PUBLIC HEARING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOMMENDING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 98-788C

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, introduced the item. A memo from Mr. Shaw to the Metro Council, regarding “Proposed Revisions to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment: Ordinance No. 98-788C,” includes information presented by Mr. Shaw and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked whether adopting the proposed ordinance would cancel out Ordinance No. 98-788C.

Mr. Shaw said the proposed ordinance was intended to replace Ordinance No. 98-788C, and the Council would readopt the UGB amendment itself.

Chair McLain asked committee members to refer to a map of the exclusive farm use (EFU) acres in Urban Reserve (UR) 55. A copy of the map is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Larry Derr, Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth (CAIG), 53 Southwest Yamhill Street, Portland, said he spoke as a representative of property owners, residents and businesses surrounding the South Hillsboro urban reserve areas and people in the urban reserves. He said he agreed with Principle I in Mr. Shaw’s memo, to exclude agricultural land, assuming that if and when the exception lands in west urban reserve 55 come into the UGB, they are delinked from the balance of the South Hillsboro urban reserves. He urged the committee to move slowly on implementation of Principle III, minimum densities of 10 units per net buildable acre. First, he said, there is no urban reserve concept plan addressing west urban reserve 55 as a stand-alone development, and there is no transportation impact plan addressing that issue. He urged the committee to take the option, under the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), to extend the 90-day deadline for reconsideration of withdrawal. He said if all four appellants agree to the extension, LUBA is guaranteed to grant it.

Mr. Derr noted a memo from Meg Fernekees, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), dated March 9, 1999, to the City of Hillsboro, in which she wrote that Hillsboro’s first tier concept plan must be revised so that it is a stand-alone plan, independent of linkages to the larger area for its development. He said if the committee adopts the proposed ordinance directing Hillsboro to follow the current plan, the committee would create a conflict because Hillsboro is working on another plan that does not meet the needs of the urban reserve concept planning process.

Mr. Derr added that there is no transportation plan for the area, despite a suggestion in the memo from Tom Kloster, Regional Transportation Plan Project Manager, to Mr. Shaw, that there has been an analysis of west UR 55 as a stand-alone plan. He said the assumptions in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), stated in Mr. Kloster’s memo, are unrealistic. He noted a memo from Leon Heff, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to Metro in December in which Mr. Heff said the RTP assumptions are not realistic, the money is not there, the impact would be too great, and it is highly unlikely that that development will occur. He said Mr. Kloster’s assumptions about transportation improvements in the Tualatin-Valley (TV) Highway corridor, including a number of parallel routes, anticipate development in UR 55 lands as well. He noted that those parallel routes would not work a stand-alone concept plan for UR 55.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Derr under what conditions CAIG would support 2040 Growth Concept densities of 10 units per acre.

Mr. Derr said CAIG would agree to density levels that could be supported by an economically feasible transportation plan.

Susan Underwood, 4025 Southwest 247th, Hillsboro, submitted written testimony in opposition to reconsideration of Ordinance No. 98-788C. The written testimony includes information presented by Ms. Underwood and is included in the meeting record. She added that she and her husband do not think they will be able to continue farming once the urban reserve areas north of their property are developed.

Councilor Park asked if Ms. Underwood was aware that they would retain their right to farm.

Ms. Underwood said yes, she understood that, but the ability to farm would be hindered the first time they drove a semi-tractor through a residential street.

Councilor Park asked if Ms. Underwood was aware that once their property was moved in the UGB, they would lose their right to farm.

Ms. Underwood said she believed they would not lose their right to farm, but they would not be allowed to change their activities once they were in the UGB.

Councilor Park disagreed, and said that once farmland is in the UGB, the right to farm is lost. He said farm usage may be continued in urban reserve areas.

Mr. Shaw clarified that Ms. Underwood’s property is already inside the UGB; reconsideration of Ordinance No. 98-788C would remove it from the UGB. He noted that there is a difference for things inside the UGB versus things in the urban reserves. The zoning that would continue would be rural zoning as it is now. He said he was not sure about the particulars of the right to farm laws, but in this situation, he believed that if Metro did not take them out of the UGB, they would be inside the UGB, with rural zoning, until Hillsboro changed the area to urban zoning.

Councilor Park said he was also not sure about the particulars of the right to farm laws.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the difficulty Ms. Underwood anticipated in her ability to farm after the exception lands are developed was due to the development and complaints from neighbors, or due to the economic viability of the parcel size.

Ms. Underwood said their concern is the ability to farm due to the impositions of potential neighbors.

Linda McQuinn, 2560 Southwest 229th Avenue, Hillsboro, spoke as a representative of her family’s property. Written testimony submitted by Ms. McQuinn includes information presented by Ms. McQuinn and is included in the meeting record.

Theodore Wrench, 4270 Southwest River Road, Hillsboro, asked to have his little farm remain in the exclusive farm use area, outside the UGB. He added that he wants to continue to farm, and does not want a lot of neighbors.

Nicholas Thomas, Post Office Box 8412, Incline Village, Nevada, invited committee members to visit his property to determine if it is viable agricultural land. He said he and his family have waited thirty years and two generations for urbanization. He said he is flexible, and open to finding a compromise, such as using his land as an urban farm. He noted that if Metro approves the removal of his land from the UGB, he will still be inside an urban reserve, and inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary. He urged Metro and the City of Hillsboro to plan for a smooth transition from rural to urban use, and noted that his land is a half mile for sewer service, a mile from Fred Meyer, and a block from a future school site.

Richard Whitman, Oregon Department of Justice, represented Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and Oregon Department of Agriculture. He said DLCD and the Department of Agriculture continue to support the removal of exclusive farm use from the urban reserves, and support decoupling, and having a stand-alone urban reserve plan. He said they have worked with Mr. Shaw on the ordinance, and are close to a final product to which they can agree. He said the following items in the current draft need more clarification: 1) whether paragraph 6B means that Hillsboro is required to develop a stand-alone urban reserve plan for the exception lands within area 55, 2) the definition of net developable acreage, and 3) the findings.

Meg Fernekees, Portland Metropolitan Representative, DLCD, submitted a letter she wrote to Patrick Ribellia, Long-Range Planning Supervisor, City of Hillsboro, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. She said she spoke with Mr. Ribellia, who said Hillsboro will comply with her letter before mid-June. She said this information will dovetail with conditions of approval outlined in the ordinance. She added that the state has asked the City of Hillsboro to move away from its all-inclusive embracement of the entire 1500 acre South Hillsboro Urban Reserve plan, which it originally submitted. She said Hillsboro has been asked to take a closer look at the 365 acres of exception land in the west part of Urban Reserve 55.

Chair McLain said asked if DLCD has already given money to the City of Hillsboro, or if the money will be forthcoming after DLCD reviews the plan.

Ms. Fernekees said DLCD awarded Hillsboro a grant to begin its planning. The conditions of the grant

firmly stated that Hillsboro needed to produce a stand-alone plan. She said the draft Hillsboro gave DLCD in November 1998, did not meet DLCD’s requirements. The purpose of her March letter was to outline the requirements of the grant.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Ms. Fernekees agreed that the plans submitted to date would not be practical if the EFU acreage was withdrawn, but she was now satisfied that Hillsboro is moving toward a new concept plan document.

Ms. Fernekees said she was told that Hillsboro had decided to meet the terms of her letter.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the new plan would be done by end of the biennium.

Ms. Fernekees said yes, she hoped it would be complete by the end of the biennium, which would be in six weeks.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the revision would require a major reworking, or if it was a matter of minor adjustment.

Ms. Fernekees said the current work consists of 20 pages and a map. DLCD has asked for a different map and additional work, so on a practical level, it would require at least twice as many pages.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, said only minor adjustments were needed on the draft ordinance. She added that 1000 Friends of Oregon was still working on some language changes in Exhibit C, the findings, to ensure that the urban reserve concept plan for west UR 55 was a stand-alone document. She noted that she had not seen Exhibits A and B, which were referred to in the ordinance.

Mr. Shaw said the findings, to be consistent with the draft, have been worked over by the appellants. He said he agreed with most of the comments from 1000 Friends of Oregon and DLCD, and the changes were currently being typed. He said Exhibit A was a map of the concept plan designations in the original ordinance. He said the only change between Ordinance No. 98-788C Exhibit B and Exhibit B to the draft ordinance will be the removal of the 48 acres of EFU land.

Chair McLain submitted a letter from Winslow Brooks, Planning Director, City of Hillsboro, into the record. She said the last paragraph of Mr. Wink’s letter raised several questions for her. From her understanding, and contrary to Mr. Brook’s letter, the adoption of a revised Ordinance No. 98-788C would affect the status of Resolution
No. 98-2728C.

Mr. Shaw said Mr. Brooks was simply being careful in the final paragraph of his letter. Mr. Shaw said the parties, on the principle of making sure that Metro’s ordinance reflects separation, were being careful. When the ordinance was originally adopted, the boundary stopped at the Metro jurisdictional boundary for the ordinance, and the resolution was on the other side of that boundary. The draft ordinance would not change that distinction, it would only remove the 48 acres. He said there was some overlap: the grant from DLCD was to study all of the first tier lands separately, and included a little more land that was is inside Metro’s jurisdictional boundary. The overlap included some exception lands between this ordinance boundary and where the farmland and St. Mary’s property started, but that overlapping exception land was part of the resolutions as well.

Councilor Atherton noted that Mr. Derr’s primary concern was the impact of urbanization on the regional transportation resource. He asked if the concept plan was adequate for Metro to evaluate whether there will be negative impacts, and therefore the Council should not approve the concept plan.

Chair McLain said that the question in front of the committee was simply whether the 48 acres of EFU land should be removed. She said the proposed ordinance did not suggest that the Council was going to undo the decision of Ordinance No. 98-788C, which was to go forward with the exception land in that same area.

Councilor Atherton said he understood that, but he was trying to understand the difference of opinion between Ms. McCurdy and Mr. Derr. He asked what process the Council would use to make sure it did not adversely affect transportation resources.

Mr. Derr said he took exception to Chair McLain’s description of the decision before the committee. He said the committee was reconsidering an ordinance which amended the UGB, and to ignore the effect of that ordinance was to put on blinders. He said Councilor Atherton’s question addressed CAIG’s main issue: CAIG appealed Ordinance 98-788C because the concept plan did not adequately address transportation impacts. He said work was being done to provide that information, and in his opinion, the Council should wait until it knows whether it made a wise decision with respect to transportation and other elements.

Councilor Atherton asked if Mr. Derr meant that a traffic study was being conducted.

Chair McLain said the traffic impact study was available to the Council. She added that Washington County was also doing some transportation modeling, which staff could give Councilor Atherton.

Ms. McCurdy said while 1000 Friends of Oregon shared some of Mr. Derr’s concerns, he had some additional concerns. She said 1000 Friends of Oregon’s concern was to ensure that the transportation planning for the South Hillsboro area was decoupled, and that the exception areas to the west of St. Mary’s property could be a stand alone plan, in terms of transportation planning as well as everything else. She said a transportation plan for the TV Highway was currently underway.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Chair McLain that the germane issue before the committee was the 48 acres of EFU land. He asked if 1000 Friends of Oregon, DLCD and Farm Bureau agreed with Mr. Wink’s statement that the Council could adopt a revised Ordinance No. 98-788C without affecting Resolution No. 98-2728C.

Chair McLain said the appellants had not received a copy of Mr. Wink’s letter.

Mr. Shaw said Councilor Bragdon’s question omitted several issues. First, the three appellants in question were appellants on Resolution No. 98-2728C, but LUBA dismissed that appeal because it was not a final land use decision. Second, it was clear from the original ordinance, and from the draft of the amended ordinance, that there was a boundary between the ordinance land that was being brought inside the UGB and the land that was in Resolution No. 98-2728C. He said it was clear that the draft ordinance did not, nor was it intended to, somehow nullify or change that status of that resolution.

Councilor Park asked Ms. McCurdy whether someone lost the right to farm once that person’s property was inside the UGB, even if the land was zoned EFU. He asked if it depended on the sequence of events whether the ability to farm was retained.

Ms. McCurdy said Councilor Park and Ms. Underwood may have used the phrase “right to farm” in two different ways: one as a legal term and one as a practical matter. If EFU land is brought inside the UGB, the property owner is entitled to continue farming, but he or she loses the legal protection of the “right to farm” statute, which provides defense if the farmer is sued for any of his or her farming practices. If the farmer is outside the UGB, or in an urban reserve, the farmer retains that legal defense of “right to farm.”

Councilor Park confirmed that he had been using the legal term based on the right to farm act. He asked if Mr. Shaw was correct in saying that a farmer retained the right to farm until the city changes the zoning.

Mr. Shaw said that zoning for exclusive farming use, which grants the legal right to farm, would remain the same. He said he was unfamiliar with the right to farm statute, and asked it defended farmers from nuisance complaints from neighbors.

Councilor Park asked about farmers’ moving rights for equipment and animals if their access road was through an urban area.

Ms. McCurdy said that farming on the UGB has its challenges, and transportation is one of them. She said as long as there is a UGB, and even without a UGB, there will always be conflicts where there are farming and urban uses near one another. She recommended thinking about rural roads.

Councilor Park rephrased his question. He said if in Hillsboro, for example, since the land adjacent to the farms was inside the UGB, there were residential streets. He asked if the city could block the ability of those farmers to get a semi-truck to their sites for farm purposes.

Chair McLain asked if there was a legal perspective as the city was rezoning; what was the status of the farmer.

Mr. Whitman said he guessed that the question was, to what extend did the right to farm statute apply to farming practices carried out within the UGB, but by an operator who was actually located outside the UGB.

Councilor Park said he was referring to farms that were outside the UGB, but whose access was inside the UGB. He asked if the normal farming practices necessary to get to and from the property were still legally protected.

Mr. Whitman said he thought that the right to farm statute applied to farming practices outside the UGB, and not farming practices carried out inside the UGB. Therefore, the farmer would not be protected in terms of a defense to a nuisance action inside the UGB. The city would have whatever power it normally had to regulate city streets, as opposed to county or state roads within its boundaries.

Mr. Shaw said that where there were city streets that may or may not be the access point for a rural activity outside of the city, the issue should be addressed in the coordination agreement between the city and county as they planned implementation of the UGB. The city and county would need to work together to make sure that access points were not lost.

Councilor Park asked if it was within Metro’s power, in terms of coordinated agreements, to make sure that those conditions exist.

Mr. Shaw said yes.

Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

Chair McLain summarized the proposal before the committee. She said the committee was considering whether to revisit one of the ordinances passed in December 1998. She said the issue of primary concern in Ordinance No. 98-788C was the 48 acres of EFU land inside that particular area, although additional questions were raised by some of the people who testified. She said the committee was not looking at the 48 acres of EFU in a void. She added that Metro tried to work with Mr. Derr and CAIG on transportation issues, but at this time, legal counsel was able to bring forward a proposal which was agreeable to all of the parties that had been involved in the EFU conversation.

Chair McLain said if the committee chose to remove the 48 acres of EFU land from Ordinance No. 98-788C, the four property owners who testified would no longer be inside the UGB, and would not be able to develop their land. She asked the committee to review the proposal in three ways. First, look for consistency: did the Council try to omit EFU land from the other ordinances adopted in December 1998? She said as a member of the Council in December 1998, she can say that they did. Second, look at the timing: removing the 48 acres would prevent the property owners from developing, and three of the four owners have expressed an interest in possibly developing their land. She asked the committee members to consider if the timing was right for some of the issues they brought up. She asked the committee members to recognize that Metro was trying to follow state law, and be consistent with its own urban reserve decision and its UGB amendment decision. She asked them to consider whether the status the revised ordinance would be any more of a state of limbo than the property owners’ current status.

Chair McLain listed the options available to the committee. First, staff could be directed to produce a final draft of the ordinance which could either come before the committee or go straight to full Council with a recommendation for adoption. Second, the committee could choose to do nothing if committee members would like more time to consider the information and testimony. She asked for committee discussion or questions.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Whitman about the church located on Ms. McQuinn’s property, which was outside the UGB and on EFU land. He asked it the state would want to review that, and if Metro had to accept it.

Mr. Whitman said he did not know the facts of this case, and did not know if it was something DLCD could or wanted to review. He said when a county grants a land-use approval for a conditional use for a church, the ability to appeal expires 21 days after the county’s approval. He assumed that since the church had already been built, any possibility of appeal was long gone.

Councilor Atherton said he heard that there were no state laws prohibiting the location of churches on exclusive farming use land outside UGBs.

Mr. Whitman said the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) had rules for locating churches on exclusive farming use within three miles of the UGB.

Chair McLain asked about June 17, 1999, deadline.

Mr. Shaw said the Council passed a resolution to withdraw Ordinance 98-788C from LUBA for 90 days for Council reconsideration, and the 90-day period would end on June 17. He said that, as Mr. Derr mentioned, Metro had the option to request LUBA to extend that time, but there was no guarantee the request would be granted. He said he would not recommend requesting an extension because all of the parties were not present at the meeting, and the City of Hillsboro did not support withdrawal of Ordinance No. 98-788C at all.

Chair McLain agreed that there was no assurance that LUBA would grant an extension without all the parties in agreement, and even then, an extension may not be granted.

Mr. Shaw added that based on what is certain, legal counsel set this up to have three parties whose primary interest was decoupling and the 48 acres to get their primary interests met, and have them continue to participate in the discussion that he anticipated they would have on transportation issues, to basically do a double-check in response to Councilor Atherton’s questions. He said there was a portion of the urban reserves concept plan that had a set of transportation improvements for just this area, and those were in the conditions of this ordinance. Legal counsel reviewed the “stand-aloneness” of that with the three parties who participated in these negotiations, and thought they had got it. Legal counsel stated to all of the parties that after the readoption, hopefully in early June, when legal counsel received the new information from the Washington County study of this area and St. Mary’s property, legal counsel would continue discussions with Mr. Derr and his client, who would probably still object to this readopted ordinance. With the narrowed number of parties, which probably would be Hillsboro continuing to intervene to keep up with what went on, and Mr. Derr, hopefully Metro would enter into formal mediation to use as a framework to discuss these transportation issues further. However, he said, his own review and Metro staff’s review of the evidence so far indicated that any adjustments Metro would make probably would not go as far as Mr. Derr’s client wanted to go, and then it would become an issue about their belief that there would never be enough money to accomplish the listed programs. There were ways that Metro may be able to negotiate on that in terms of the way legal counsel might rewrite a condition at that time. He said that was the kind of step-by-step approach legal counsel had taken to this, to remind the committee, they had discussed this before.

Councilor Park asked if he was correct that under House Bill (HB) 2709 and HB 2493, the requirements that Metro had put forth in terms of master plans were not requirements of state law.

Mr. Shaw said that was correct.

Councilor Park asked if Metro was required to have transportation plans or master planning in place prior to bringing land into the UGB. He asked if the tier one designation was created by Metro.

Mr. Shaw said yes, but Goals 14 and 2 on UGB limits required findings to show that Metro had sufficient planning for transportation generally, just not in the form of an urban reserve plan.

Councilor Park repeated that Metro was not required to have a funding mechanism in place, and was not required to demonstrate how the growth would occur.

Mr. Shaw said yes, the funding estimates that were done in this regard were very much estimates over 20 years. He said this was a fundamental difference that Metro had with CAIG.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the City of Hillsboro was opposed to the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 98-788C. He said he understood Mr. Wink’s letter as saying that Hillsboro would favor a partial withdrawal of the ordinance.

Mr. Shaw say the City of Hillsboro did not agree with the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 98-788C to consider removing the 48 acres, but now that the Metro Council had withdrawn Ordinance No. 98-788C for reconsideration, Hillsboro did not disagree.

Councilor Park said this was a difficult decision. He noted that he farms on land inside the UGB, and is not protected by the right to farm act. He said it does make operation of the farm more difficult, in terms of uninvited guests on his property, moving equipment, and other farm operations. He said he has chosen to support the ordinance based on the fact that the right to farm exists outside the UGB, and Metro can ensure that farmers have access to their properties, and that Metro is not required by master planning or state law to have those items in place prior to bringing the land into the UGB.

Councilor Bragdon said he wanted to answer Ms. McQuinn’s question: when was a decision at Metro final. He said he understood her confusion and frustration. He said while the process may seem cumbersome and irrational, the committee was trying to work out the appeal consistent with state law. He said he supported revising the ordinance to remove the 48 acres of EFU land in the interest of moving the UGB decision along, and trying to bring some predictability to Metro’s decisions.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw how he would ensure the property owners their ability to farm, in terms of access, in the coordinating agreement. He asked if it would require an amendment to this ordinance.

Mr. Shaw said there were many options as to form: there could be a separate resolution or ordinance that would be sent to the city and the county; something could be added to the draft ordinance; or there could be a letter asking the city and county to consider it in coordination agreements. He said the options depended on how binding the Council wanted it to be.

Chair McLain said the meeting record should reflect the committee’s concern for farmers continued ability to farm, and the committee would have to think about the proper wording and vehicle. She said her concern was to not landlock the owners or make their situation impossible. She said that over the past three to five months, she had thought about what she could do to try to help give the property owners the most options. She said in her opinion, the Council did them a disservice when it added them into the exception land area of urban reserve 55, because both the City of Hillsboro and Metro are required to meet state law and demonstrate that they are not trying to move exclusive farming use into the UGB. She said the UGB expansion process needed to go forward so that Metro could meet the state’s requirement for a 20-year land supply, and at this time, the process had been held up by the appeals.

Chair McLain said the exception lands in UR 55 were not controversial; even CAIG was willing to support development of the exception lands provided there was transportation funding and planning. However, the only way the exception land and those transportation processes would go forward was with continued surveillance and involvement of Metro, Hillsboro and Washington County. She said it would not happen if it stayed in Ordinance No. 98-788C, due to the issues around EFU land. As Mr. Shaw said, the Council had actual conditions in the original ordinance, and Metro would continue to try to meet the needs of the people who came forward with these other issues on transportation.

Chair McLain said the Council’s inability to meet all the conditions of a singular appeal did not mean it should not chose to move forward. She said Metro was trying to systematically remove the things it could do now, and systematically work on the things it had not achieved at this time. Currently, the property owners in the EFU areas would have more options if the exception lands were developed, because there were exceptions in Goal 14 for special needs, and some of those properties may end qualify as having special needs. She said she also believed developing the exception lands would provide more options because right now, using EFU land and trying to fulfill Metro’s 20-year land supply was being tested in the courts. As a result, the property owners would have more certainty from the courts on the interpretation of state law on issues such as the definition of special needs, and when EFU land should be added to the UGB. She summarized that supporting the motion would 1) carry the process forward in an appropriate way, 2) improve the ordinance passed by the Council in December 1998, and 3) put the property owners one step closer to concluding their conversation with the governments involved on “what about us,” because exception lands would go forward.

Councilor Park said the need to guarantee access for farmers on the edge of UGB was not unique to urban reserve 55. He recommended amending the Functional Plan to include an automatic set of conditions of the exception areas moving into the UGB, so that people on the surrounding EFU lands were still able to make a decent living.

Chair McLain agreed, but added that it sounded like a bigger job, because Metro had to meet conditions that may not be the same in each of these sites. She asked Mr. Shaw for guidance.

Mr. Shaw noted that on a map it appeared that the 48 acres of EFU land would be surrounded by developable exception land across Southwest River Road to the east. In reality, however, the land on the eastern side of the road was a floodplain and must be developed as a park, as per the new conditions connected to the decoupling of the urban reserve plans. Mr. Shaw said secondly, he could add land language to the ordinance requiring the city and county to coordinate access to these particular EFU lands on the opposite side of Southwest River Road from that park. He said the amendment should not be complicated or controversial, and would then be part of what should be included in the Hillsboro comprehensive plan as a result of this ordinance.

Chair McLain said the committee could look at the larger issue later. She said for this particular EFU land, Metro would try to do as much mitigation as possible for the transition period.

Councilor Atherton asked why the land should be added to the UGB if it will be a park.

Mr. Shaw said they had a rousing discussion in their meetings about that, and the first proposals were to cut the new UGB line straight across. After looking closely at the pieces that made up the urban reserve plan, however, it was noted that in order to achieve an average density of ten units per acre, the outer neighborhoods would have lower density, and the Gordon Creek neighborhood area would have higher densities. Mr. Shaw said the City of Hillsboro felt it needed the floodplain land for a community park in order to support the level of density Metro required.

Councilor Bragdon suggested amending the master planning process under the Metro Code to require jurisdictions to consider continued economic viability of agriculture in adjacent areas, in addition to the current requirements such as safeguarding natural resources and planning schools.

Chair McLain said during the committee’s conversation, the committee asked to make sure that the property owners have access to their land. She noted that the committee had been discussing Southwest River Road, but Ms. Underwood’s access may come from another road.

Mr. Shaw said he was just talking about the location of where he would put the wording in the existing ordinance, not that it would be solely related to Southwest River Road.

Chair McLain said one of the other issues that had been addressed was trying to refine decisions the Council made in December. She noted that with any land use decision, there was an appeal process that tried to give more refinement. She said the goal was to not keep the public hostage any longer than necessary, so people could appeal. She said she hoped the committee could do that for the people who testified today. She said the committee wanted to work with the people who testified, hear from them, and know if the City of Hillsboro or Washington County were willing to help them determine their transition and condition. She added that the committee wanted to help in any way it can. She said she was willing to talk to the neighborhood or individual landowners on these issues.

Chair McLain will carry the ordinance to the full Metro Council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2794, FOR THE PURPOSE OF URGING BALANCE IN THE REGULATION OF PESTICIDE USE IN AN URBAN AREA

Councilor Park presented Resolution No. 99-2794. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Councilor Park and is included in the meeting record. Councilor Park read a statement from Governor John Kitzhaber: Principles for Supportable Pesticide Reporting. A copy of the Governor’s statement is included in the meeting record. Councilor Park also read from a resolution from the State Board or Agriculture that embraced the same principles and specifically noted HB 3602-4, which was currently under consideration in the state legislature. A copy of the resolution is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon said he supported the idea of comprehensive pesticide reporting. He said the

fingerpointing between urban and rural areas was not productive; everyone contributed to the problem, so everyone should contribute to the solution.

Chair McLain noted that the Regional Water Consortium voted on a similar issue, and agreed that reporting should be done in both rural and urban areas. She said some questions were raised in the meeting about how it would cause issues, but the Consortium was willing to work through that as long as it felt it was fair and equitable.

Councilor Atherton said urban dwellers supported this concept, most explicitly in resolutions by the League of Oregon Cities, the City of Lake Oswego and the Clackamas River Basin Council. He said the word “balance” was overused and has no real meaning. He said the Council needed to support the tracking of urban users. He said he supported Resolution No. 99-2794, but would like wordsmithing of the term “balance.”

Councilor Bragdon noted that “balance” could mean that neither the rural areas nor the urban areas did anything. He suggested a friendly amendment to the final paragraph of the resolution to read “. . . any regulations must also be balanced should be comprehensive by including the urban as well as the rural users of pesticides.” A copy of Councilor Bragdon’s proposal for a friendly amendment is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park agreed to the friendly amendment.

Councilor Atherton noted that Governor Kitzhaber, in his statement, used the words “universal” and “meaningful.” He suggested replacing the second use of the word “balance” with the phrase “universal and meaningful” in the resolution’s final paragraph.

Councilor Park said Councilor Atherton’s concern was addressed in the second-to-last paragraph, which states that pesticide reporting “must include meaningful, scientifically-based data on urban use.”

Councilor Park will carry Resolution No. 99-2794 to the full Metro Council.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, noted that Resolution No. 99-2794 will go to the full Metro Council on Thursday, May 27, 1999.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Chair McLain clarified for Mr. Shaw that the committee wished legal counsel to assign an ordinance number to the draft ordinance on reconsideration of Ordinance No. 98-788C and take it directly to the full Metro Council.

Councilor Bragdon apologized for arriving late. He said he had a prior commitment in Tigard that did not finish until 1:30 P.M.

Councilor Atherton said several weeks ago, the committee talked about the concept of having those communities that want growth to indicate that desire. He recommended that as the Council begins the next round of UGB adjustments, due to the state mandate to expand the UGB, it should at least send a communication out to those communities that would want to grow asking them to say so. He reported that he discussed this with several communities in Clackamas County and they supported it. He said he would like to discuss this in committee, if possible. He added that he expected those communities to bring up the issue at the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC).

Chair McLain said she and Councilor Atherton could discuss the legal aspects of his recommendation when they meet with Mr. Shaw. Secondly, she said it would be appropriate for any jurisdiction to raise this issue at MPAC. She said the members of the Growth Management Committee have not shown interest in putting that particular document out.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:40 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\05269gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 26, 1999

The following have been included as part of the official public record: